Not in God's Name: Confronting Religious Violence

by Jonathan Sacks

Despite predictions of continuing secularisation, the twenty-first century has witnessed a surge of religious extremism and violence in the name of God.In this powerful and timely book, Jonathan Sacks explores the roots of violence and its relationship to religion, focusing on the historic tensions between the three Abrahamic Judaism, Christianity and Islam.Drawing on arguments from evolutionary psychology, game theory, history, philosophy, ethics and theology, Sacks shows how a tendency to violence can subvert even the most compassionate of religions. Through a close reading of key biblical texts at the heart of the Abrahamic faiths, Sacks then challenges those who claim that religion is intrinsically a cause of violence, and argues that theology must become part of the solution if it is not to remain at the heart of the problem.This book is a rebuke to all those who kill in the name of the God of life, wage war in the name of the God of peace, hate in the name of the God of love, and practise cruelty in the name of the God of compassion.For the sake of humanity and the free world, the time has come for people of all faiths and none to stand together and Not In God's Name.

Genres: Religion, Nonfiction, Theology, Jewish, Judaism, Philosophy, Politics

321 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2015

About the author

Rabbi Lord Jonathan Henry Sacks was the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth. His Hebrew name was Yaakov Zvi.

Serving as the chief rabbi in the United Kingdom from 1991 to 2013, Sacks gained fame both in the secular world and in Jewish circles. He was a sought-after voice on issues of war and peace, religious fundamentalism, ethics, and the relationship between science and religion, among other topics. Sacks wrote more than 20 books.

Rabbi Sacks died November 2020 after a short bout with cancer. He was 72.

Reviews

[Bar Reads · Rating 5 out of 5]

"not in god's name: confronting religious violence / Jonathan sacks explores the roots of religious violence, & how misinterpreting text & having a dualistic, fundamentalist view, contributes to hate & ultimately turns to violence.

Sacks talks about all forms of terrorism.
& I, personally, as a Jew, am appalled when I see things about Jewish terrorism and I speak out against it, but I also want to be able to talk about all forms of terrorism, without being called a xenophobe.

The regressive left with the social justice warriors are killing free speech in the name of political correctness, but I won't shut up when it comes to bad ideas, like raping women and slaughtering infidels. Lets talk about bad ideas, but at the same time, spread a word of tolerance and peace.

In the beginning, the book has a few chapters that I would categorize as social science & history,
It's followed by a few chapters that explore the biblical text, showing that “genesis” is written like a proper book-with a narrative and character progression.
It's one of the deepest, most profound reads I've ever had.

We are drawn in multiple examples to the other, the outsider, the underdog, the stranger, and Rabbi Sacks reminds us of the well known saying: “you were once strangers in a strange land”

Quote:
“At the core of the bible's value system
is that cultures, like individuals, are
judged by their willingness to extend
care beyond the boundary of
family, tribe, ethnicity and nation.”

It shows how characters are not close to perfect; they are profoundly flawed and morally grey. This is put in the book for us to see that humanity is capable of both good and bad, and that redemption is possible.

It also shows how dangerous thinking: I'm good, they're bad is. Quote:
"Pathological dualism does three things:
It makes you dehumanize
and demonize your enemies.
It leads you to see yourself as a victim.
And it allows you to commit altruistic evil,
killing in the name of the god of life,
hating in the name of the god of love,
and practicing cruelty in the
name of the god of compassion.”

On fundamentalism:
"Never say, I hate, I kill, because my religion says so.
Every text needs interpretation.
Every interpretation needs wisdom.
Every wisdom needs careful negotiation
between the timeless and time.
Fundementalism reads text as if
god were as simple as we are.
That is unlikely to be true”

This is not an easy read.
that being said, it is a very profound read, I have tweeted quotes from this book more than any other book I've read,
I've loved it, & I really want it to be translated to Hebrew, so I could buy it to everyone.
4.6 stars

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

NOT IN GOD’S NAME is one of the most profound books I have ever read. Jonathan Sacks provides an incisive analysis of the roots of religious violence and hopeful direction on the way that humanity may move forward in dealing with it. As recent events in France have demonstrated, none of us are immune or protected against the possibility of religious violence. This makes this book relevant to every one of us. Sacks asks in which direction we want to go — the will to power or the will to life? While Sacks is clearly passionate about this global problem, he writes with extraordinary depth and objectivity with a simple power that is difficult to ignore. Sacks calls all people — and particularly those of the Abrahamic religions — to let go of hate and the grasping for power. As Sacks so eloquently observes, No soul was ever saved by hate. No truth was ever proved by violence. No redemption was ever brought by holy war. No religion won the admiration of the world by its capacity to inflict suffering on its enemies. Despite the fact that these things have been endorsed in their time by sincere religious believers, they are a travesty of faith, and until we learn this, religion will remain one of the greatest threats to the peace of the world. NOT IN GOD’S NAME is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand religious violence (better called “altruistic evil”) — and more importantly, what we can do about it.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not in God’s Name – An Interesting Opening to a debate

Former Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has just published one of the most pertinent books about religious extremism that should be the beginning of a debate on religious violence. This is a well researched well written start to a debate that needs to be taken about how we can understand radical politicised religious violence. While not coming up with a complete answer what Jonathan Sacks is doing is inviting us to think about how we can end radical politicised religious violence.

At present there is a whole slew of books that have been published on religious violence mainly from a Christian standpoint looking at Islamic violence this is a wonderful complimentary book to that canon and vital at the same time.

Sacks open the book looking at a definition of evil and reminding us that Judaism, Islam and Christianity are the three Abrahamic faiths, religious cousins. There is an interesting debate about the sociology of the Abrahamic faiths, the history, philosophy, and psychological insight into relationships which includes a sort of sibling rivalry, rejection, where all three see themselves as victims, scapegoats, and the need to search for reconciliation.

In the final chapter Sacks addresses his specific remedies to religious violence which are aimed specifically towards the Abrahamic faiths. At least unlike politicians and so called media experts and commentators, who will disagree with Sacks ideas, there is no flailing around looking for an answer. Sacks also points out that have a vested interest in the problem of violence are actually part of the problem.

In God’s Name does not offer a cure but it certainly offers a diagnosis and that the current pace of religious violence offers those opposed to religions to state their case even more at the moment. What Sacks does say that one of the things religions can do is learn to honour God’s name and be more like his likeness may help to solve the problems that arise from religions.

Those who are not active in any faith will point out the many points that they will not agree with but this book is not designed for a non-believer it is written for those who have a faith and want to understand religious violence.

Those with a faith will receive this book and its teaching and wisdom with an open mind while those commentators who do not, will continue flail around and come up with nothing.

[John Forman · Rating 5 out of 5]

This may be one of the most powerful books I have read in the past decade, and I hope and pray that it receives an enormous readership. One reviewer thought that Rabbi Sacks may be "preaching to the choir" and not reaching those who perpetrate religious violence. I see the concern, especially given the events of the past week, but I don't share it. Rabbi Sacks' work in this book is truly prophetic in the tradition of prophets of biblical times, who were not predictors of the future, but rather inspired voices calling people to repentance and justice. They reminded the people of God’s amazing and steadfast faithfulness, as Rabbi Sacks does here. They offered not despair, but hope and a reminder of right relationship with G*d, by whatever name we choose to use for the Divine. If religion is to live into its potential as the source of hope, love and justice, then especially the children of Abraham--teachers, leaders, clergy and lay people--would do well to get re-inspired by this masterwork from a brilliant soul. Pick up this book, read it, and remember or learn how to put love into action for justice, instead of retribution or despair.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a really excellent book, and an easy read for anyone interested in the issues. The first half is a helpful and informed survey of what I regard as some of the most useful psycho-social authors on the analysis of today's epidemic of religiously-motivated violence around the world. It is eloquent, non-partisan and accurate. The second half of the book gives a theological exploration of a non-fundamentalist approach to the Abrahamic faiths and their relevance to this issue. Written as it is by the UK's immediate past Chief Rabbi, I found it a profound and very readable exposition - indeed I told my wife, Joan, that I doubted that I had ever heard such an in-depth biblical exposition from a Presbyterian pulpit. I downloaded the book after participating in a House of Lords debate where the author, Rabbi, the Lord Sacks, was also a speaker. I had been impressed by his speech, and by a review of the book in the current issue of The House - the weekly journal of the Westminster Parliament. I am very glad that I did. It is a long time since I found a book so 'un-put-down-able' or gave five stars in a review, but this book hit all the buttons for me.

[Penni · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is long since I’ve enjoyed a book so much. The ingenuity and creativity that Rabbi Jonathan Saks brings to illuminate and legitimize that all Abrahamic religions are covenantal and not just Judaism, is refreshing and astounding.
The book is beautifully written and organized.

Some excerpts below that were either beautiful, profound, shocking or new to me:

On the irrationality of antisemitism:

"Jews were hated in Germany because they were rich and because they were poor, because they were capitalists and because they were communists, because they kept to themselves and because they infiltrated everywhere, because they believed in a primitive faith and because they were rootless cosmopolitans who believed nothing. Hitler believed that Jews were controlling both the United States and the Soviet Union. How could they be doing both? Because they were Jews."

Antisemitism as it stands is new:

"In the Middle Ages Jews were hated because of their religion. In the nineteenth century, they began to be hated for their race. That is what was new." (and later in chapter 15, he adds, "and today for their nation state, Israel")

He talks about the evolutionary psychology of in-group and out-groups needed for protection and survival, and often the out-group, the other, the "them" is used as a scapegoat for instability of the in-group.
How groups need this contradiction in order to create a scapegoat. If one can look out, they can protect their own.

"You have to be at the same time both powerful and powerless. If the scapegoat were actually powerful, it would no longer fulfill its essential function as the victim of violence without risk of reprisal. But if the scapegoat were believed to be powerless, it could not plausibly be cast as the cause of our troubles."


Some shocking (to me) revelations:

Voltaire on Jews: "An ignorant and barbarous people, who have long united the most sordid avarice with the most detestable superstition and the most invincible hatred for every people by who they are tolerated and enriched."
"Still, we ought not to burn them."

Kant: “the vampires of society”, he called for “the euthanasia of Judaism”.

Hegel on Jews: “slave morality”, unable to conceive or practice a religion of love” . a ghost race.

Fichte on Jews: "Enemy of freedom", “as for giving the Jews civil rights, I see no other way than that of some night cutting off their heads and attaching in their place others in which there is not a single Jewish Idea..."
Althernatively, they should be ‘packed off’ to ‘their promised land’.

Schopenhauer on Jews: "...no better than cattle, scum of the earth, a people to be expelled."

Nietzche (ok, no revelation here): falsification of natural values. His great originality is that , instead of criticizing Jews for rejecting Christianity, he blamed them for giving birth to it in the first place.


Some more revelations:

Who was Ketura? Was she Hagar? He does a beautiful reading of the portion, perhaps without basis. (https://www.thetorah.com/article/our-...)

His further reading of Isaac being in Beer Lahai Roi, that it was Isaac who reconciled Abraham and Hagar, and this signifies that Ishmael and i
Isaac had a brotherly relationship. Again, an original reading.

----------

Unrelated, having recently read East of Eden by John Steinbeck and the story of Cain and Abel yet ringing in my ears, coming across this poem as the intro to chapter 13 was.. serendipitous:

Here in this Transport
I, Eve
Am with my son Abel
If you see my elder son
Cain son of man
Tell him I Am

---------

In chapter 15 he writes:

"The more religious people are, the more children they have. The more secular they are, the fewer children they have. The indigenous populations of Europe, the most secular continent on earth, are committing long, slow suicide. Their below-replacement birth rates means that they will get older and fewer and the religious will inherit the earth"
This isn’t news, and yet somehow it is chilling.

In the 30s they chanted ‘Jews to Palestine’. Today they chant ‘Jews out of Palestine’. Amos Oz: They don’t want us to be here. They don’t want us to be there. They don’t want us to be.


In closing:

Wars are won by weapons, but it takes ideas to win a peace.
Rabbi Saks, after taking us through a journey of sibling rivalry, Freudian brotherly jealousy and hate, Cain and Abel, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, comes back to this-

"There is room for brotherly love if we will it. If we want it. We can all be the “in-group”. Our common humanity precedes our religious differences. That god has made two covenants with us, one in our common humanity, the other in our specific identity. The first is about the universality of justice, the second about the particularity of love."

[Leah · Rating 5 out of 5]

I originally picked up this book only because I am generally a fan of Rabbi Sacks' writing. The question of "why does religion cause violence" has never really interested me, because I've read enough history to know it's a false premise. Nevertheless, I've read almost everything else Rabbi Sacks has written, so I figured I would give this book a try.

Well, it turns out that Rabbi Sacks, too, knows some history, and does away pretty quickly with the concept that religion is the source of all violence; his central question is, "Why is religion the main source of violence NOW," which turns out to be a much more interesting question with a much more interesting answer.

That question, and his answers, take up the first part of book; this is the section I think would be of interest to almost anyone interested in current events. The rest of the book attempts to find a solution to the problem, and to ground/read this solution in the Biblical text through some extremely interesting interpretation. I didn't find this part as convincing as the first -- I would say it was 90% convincing to me, personally -- but 90% is pretty good when it comes to discussions of this nature. It was definitely fascinating and thought-provoking throughout -- even if I hadn't been convinced at all, I wouldn't have been sorry to have explored these ideas.

Toward the end of the book, Rabbi Sacks attempts to chart a vision for a future where religion will no longer be the cause of violence, but a solution toward it. I found this part overly optimistic as a solution to the issues our world is facing today. But it did lay out a legitimate and compelling framework for a worldview in which such a thing could, in theory, be possible.

[Terry Earley · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very important book for religious people. There is a constant, popular drumbeat declaring with loud authority, that religion is the source of the worst violence today and throughout history.

I know this is nonsense repeated by those who, for their own reasons, are antagonistic to religion, but Sacks describes the realities with such clarity, it was refreshing to read. In addition to thoughtful answers to this question, I got a nice course of study in the Old Testament patriarchs and matriarchs.

Sacks clarifies that God loves all of his children, regardless of their frailties and faults. He works with us all. Israel is not a "master Race", but a "Covenant Race". There is a very important difference in that.

[Jeffrey (Akiva) Savett · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jonathan Sacks is one of the most inspiring and important religious thinkers of our time. Thankfully, he's incredibly prolific. This book is Sacks's response to the new atheists (Hitchens, Harris and company) who claim religion is responsible for all the evil in society, but especially the violence and religiously branded war with which we currently contend.

I don't want to give too much of Sacks's argument away because much of the joy in this book comes by way of discovery. It's a deep Jewish goal and honor to offer a "hiddush," roughly "new" or "novel" interpretation of a religious text. Sacks delivers here in ways that had me in awe.

He spends the first part of the book identifying what he believes are the causes of human violence. He calls two of these tendencies "pathological dualism" and "mimetic desire." In layman's terms, the former is seeing the world in binary terms--black and white, good and evil, the children of light v. the children of darkness, and the latter is the desire to BE or TAKE THE PLACE OF one's neighbor or sibling. He spends a lot more time explaining how these work than I have room to here.

Sacks doesn't run from examples of these characteristics in Jewish texts and tradition. Rather, he points out example after example of the most famous occasions of sibling rivalry, dualism, and mimesis: Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac, Hagar and Sarah, Jacob and Esau, Joseph and his brothers. In EVERY CASE, as I was saying before, Sacks manages to argue PRETTY PERSUASIVELY that the Torah does not say what we think it says about these stories. He suggests we're RIGHT to empathize with Hagar and Ishmael, with Esau over Jacob. Furthermore, through his novel interpretations, he suggests that the Torah can serve as a manual for COMBATTING dualism and religious violence. We just need to read with subtlety and nuance and care. As always, Sacks offers a compelling case for continuing to study traditional religious texts and hold them in high regard. Indeed, in a wonderful example of intertextuality, in Thank You For Being Late, which I'm reading simultaneously, Tom Friedman quotes Sacks and discusses his beliefs as a way of "surviving" and "adapting" to the tumult of the "age of accelerations" in which we live.

To this end, in one of the sections I enjoyed most because I happen to agree with it, Sacks discusses the importance of the interpretative traditions in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. He argues that these traditions are ESSENTIAL, not just clever apologetics added later by religious leaders. Sacks holds that "Fundamentalism is text without context and application without interpretation" and that such an approach is, CONTRARY TO THE BELIEFS OF THOSE WHO ESPOUSE IT "NOT FAITH BUT AN ABERRATION OF FAITH."

We are lucky to have Rabbi Sacks in our world. He's incredibly learned. He's incredibly compassionate. He's incredibly brave. In full disclosure as a reviewer's note, I came to this book already not believing that religion is the cause of war and violence in a simplistic way. As Sacks also points out---I believe that disaffection usually begins with economics, psychology, and politics...this disaffection then often takes on the language of religious struggle because it so powerfully appeals to dualism and mimesis. In other words, certain interpretations of certain religions become commonplace in certain times for certain reasons. I don't believe there's anything endemic to religion or to a particular religion which skews it toward violence. To think otherwise is to ignore history, the violent passages in one's own tradition, and the experiments in the 20th century with totalitarian non-religious regimes. I say all of this only to tell the reader that I enjoyed this book partially because it didn't ALSO have to convince me of its thesis. I could sit back and enjoy Rabbi Sacks's genius at work. So should you.

[Mary Shelton · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of my top three favorite books this year. I wish communities could read it in mixed-tradition groups--like the interfaith groups that once discussed the book of Genesis, or before that (and on a completely different plane), Constantine's Sword. On the other hand, maybe with a book like Not In God's Name, it's best to read a chapter at a time and think about it privately, without the urge to tell others what we're thinking. I say that because it's emotionally and spiritually dense, and I think that if I were discussing it in a group, I'd be tempted to use the occasion to assert my religious and political identity.

The title refers to sectarian violence and hate, but it's more than that. It's about conflict between Jews, Christians, and Muslims, but it's also about conflict within Jewish, Christian, and Muslim communities. (Our Jewish community has a little conflict. If your religious community doesn't have any conflict, maybe your family has conflict. If not, then this might not be your book.) Identity-based conflict is an important idea in this book, along with what Rabbi Sacks calls "pathological duality" (the unwillingness to accept that people can be both good and bad, not either/or). He also talks about sibling rivalry (over a parent's love or God's love). But if this were just about ideas like that, it wouldn't be that different from other books about God and conflict. What made it interesting was the textual interpretation, where he linked passages in different places to unlock the meaning: "Genesis was about the birth of a covenantal family. Exodus is about the birth of a covenantal nation: ...[N]ot until families can live in peace can a nation live in peace."

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very well written account of religious violence. It's a bit jumpy (the first part is a pop-science discussion of the origins of group-to-group violence, the second is a close reading of the book of Genesis, the third a historical discussion of religious violence), in a way that I think only probably works if the reader is themself religious (as then the second part doesn't feel such a non sequitur).

Some of the arguments didn't convince me (eg the comparison of violence between the Reformation + printing press and Modern Islam + internet), and his modern reading of Genesis doesn't have as much impact unless, like Sacks, you believe that the Bible is "convenantal history".

But for the most part the arguments are well made, the perspectives very interesting, and the faith in a more positive future of tolerance inspiring.

[Alicia Joy · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really enjoyed the middle chapters where the author analyzed religious texts. Very interesting. However, I picked up this book with the idea that it would be about religiously driven terrorism. The author did not discuss the Quar'an or Islam or religious extremism directly. He talks primarily about Jewish beliefs and texts. Very disappointing and I am not sure I agree with a good chunk of what he said, though it may be because he is. it very good at developing an argument. However, he is quite good at beating a dead horse. Maybe worth the read, it definitely gave me some good ideas, but it was a little painful to get through.

[gideon · Rating 3 out of 5]

For all its flaws, this was still a very powerful read that I enjoyed and would recommend, especially for Bereshit fans. Just be aware that it is annoying in some ways. There were some references to ‘marriage’ giving the subtle message that lgbt acceptance is a sign of societal decay and constant hyping up of liberal democracy, which wasn’t too constant and obnoxious for me but may be for others.

Rabbi Sacks begins with a theory of altruistic violence based on in-group/out-group feeling and dualism that was powerful and painful to read at this time. He explains how fractured nations use pathological dualism as a powerful unifying factor that shuts down morality, and why this never solves the inner societal conflict. Monotheism done right is a powerful counter to this because it internalizes good and evil, requiring us to accept that God can bring good and bad into the world and that we are not totally good and need to struggle within ourselves, not in battle with other groups. I thought this was a clear and compelling explanation.

Next, Rabbis Sacks re-interprets stories of sibling rivalry in Bereshit (Yitzchak & Ishmael, Rachel & Leah, Yaakov & Esav, Yosef and his brothers) to show how the Torah is actually rejecting rejection. I expected to be rolling my eyes through this but it was actually my favorite part and quite refreshing and insightful. He shows how these stories make us identify with the other and teach us that while one sibling/group may be chosen for a covenant, others are chosen for the blessings that are right for them, and all are loved and have a relationship with God. Some of this didn’t totally hit for me, because I think there’s a clear difference in value between “chosen for a holy covenant with God” and “blessed with material wealth and power.” But the general idea is that God has unique relationships with each nation but all of us are loved, and wants us to allow each other to exist with our differences, and I vibe with that. As evidence, he brings up instances where other nations are praised or God is involved in their story, and how much of Tanakh is criticizing the Israelites/Jews. Lastly, for texts that advocate violence in any religion, he says that the text was given in love and should be interpreted in love. All traditions have traditions of interpretation and taking a violent text at face value is a perversion of that. As part of this discussion he brings in the rabbinic tradition of being against militarism, but didn’t delve as deeply into that as I would have liked. More on that soon.

The last part of the book explores the problems with religion being allied to political power. Being defeated in some way rescues religions from the pursuit of power, allowing them to reach their most influential state, which is when they are not tied up with politics and can allow dissenting voices. He claims that Judaism and Christianity learned this lesson ages ago, Judaism through the failure of the Roman revolts and I forget what was Christianity’s learning moment. According to Sacks, today it is Islam’s turn to learn this lesson.

Which brings me to the place of Islam in this book. On the one hand, from the acknowledgements and various statements throughout the book, it’s clear that Sacks has nothing against Islam and appreciates it for its good qualities and all that great interfaith stuff. He doesn’t present it as an inherently violent religion. (He also claims that Muslim society was not really antisemitic until the 1930s-40s when it was imported from Christian society which… is a great oversimplification to say the least.) He does mention religious violence from Christians and Jews and against Muslims, which I appreciated. But the bulk of religious violence that he focuses on in this book is Islamist violence. He says that this is because it’s the most quickly spreading and dangerous religious ideology of the world today. I understand why he focused on it as much as he did, but I think he took it a little too far. This section especially really suffered from a lack of focus on Judaism and Christianity. I wish he brought Christian nationalism into the discussion. The book was published in 2017, and I think Christian nationalism was already enough of an issue to demand more attention than it was given, rather than acting like Christian violence has passed its time of being a major world issue. I was also really confused by his claim that Judaism learned this lesson ages ago, since it seems to me we absolutely did not, but he doesn’t mention Israel at all. He did bring up Baruch Goldstein as an example of religious violence earlier in the book, so I’m quite befuddled as to why he didn’t say anything here about extremist settler violence and the relationship between religion and power in Israel. In general, he seemed really hesitant to apply any of these concepts about violence, dualism, religion & power etc to Judaism, claiming we learned all these lessons thousands of years ago.

Rabbi Sacks ends with the message that to be free, you need to let go of hate. Jews remember our past not to feel INSIDE it and hate our oppressors, but to remember pain and not oppress others. You don't need to love your enemy, but you need to help him. You need to build your future and take responsibility for your fate, rather than building a society on hating and blaming others for your victimization. Vengeance is in God's hands: our job is not to attempt absolute justice but to see what we can do to better ourselves in this situation. Repentance and forgiveness allows us to move on from blame. I really like this pragmatism over moral puritanism. I think it’s very lacking today.

I finished the book with a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of religious violence. I thought a lot about how they can apply equally to certain Jewish and Islamist groups, yet people constantly point out the way others fit into these frameworks and can't seem to see themselves behaving the exact same way. Seeing how these issues play out today, in exactly the way Rabbi Sacks describes, makes me wonder what he would say if he was alive. He seems like such a powerful and clear-sighted voice against violence. Considering the complexities of what he gave more and less attention to, I really don’t know what he would say, but I feel like we just don’t have such a respected liberal Orthodox leader today and it’s so sorely needed.

[Daughters Of Abraham · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Chagrin Valley Ohio chapter recently read Not in God's Name: Confronting Religious Violence" by Rabbi Jonathan Sachs. He addresses the phenomenon of religious extremism and violence committed in God's name. Rabbi Sachs argues that violence is an inevitable result of the distorted notion that there is only one "true" religion: "Mine is right and yours is wrong".
He shows that violence in the name of religion has at its source a misreading of biblical texts which are at the heart of the three Abrahamic faiths. His analysis of the book of Genesis he offers a radical rereading of many of the Bible's seminal stories of sibling rivalry: Cain and Abel, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, Joseph and his brothers, and Rachel and Leah.
Abraham himself, writes Rabbi Sachs, sought to be a blessing to others regardless of religion."It is not our task to conquer or convert the world or to enforce uniformity of belief, but to be a blessing to the world." He continues that our task. Jew, Christian, and Muslim, is to live at last as brothers and sisters, honoring God's name by honoring his image, humankind."
The members of the Chagrin Valley chapter found this book to be "an eloquent call for people of good will to stand together, confront the religious extremism that threatens to destroy us, and to declare: Not in God's Name."

[Robert Koslowsky · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not in God’s Name
The subject book, written by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks in 2015, addresses the phenomenon of religious extremism in the 21st century. “Abraham himself,” writes Rabbi Sacks, “sought to be a blessing to others regardless of their faith. The idea, ignored for many of the intervening centuries, remains the simplest definition of Abrahamic faith. It is not our task to conquer or convert the world or enforce uniformity of belief . . . To invoke God to justify violence against the innocent is not an act of sanctity but of sacrilege.”

For an understanding of the rise of radical Islam, I recommend the reading of Sacks’ book.

Religion has returned in force across many parts of the world because “it’s hard to live without meaning . . . the great modern substitutes for religion – the nation, the race and political ideology – are no less likely to offer human sacrifices to their surrogate deities . . . The religion that has returned is religion at its most adversarial and aggressive, prepared to do battle with the enemies of the Lord, bring the apocalypse, end the reign of decadence and win the final victory for God, truth and submission to the divine will.”

Ms. Murabit, a Canadian born, Libyan trained doctor, on January 3, 2016, said, “After the revolution, people claimed Islam as the reason to oppress women. That wasn’t religion. It was a manipulation of faith . . . Using God is a very easy way to manipulate society.” She cautions against radicalization and the murder and chaos it engenders.

However, the Internet is an incredible tool to spread radical political Islam, turning it into a global force capable of inciting terror and winning recruits throughout the world.

“Religion performed, and continues to perform, a task fundamental to large groups. It links people, emotionally, behaviorally, intellectually, and spiritually, into communion and thus community.” It can be a force for good or a force for evil as evidenced by the rise of radical Islam.

Meanwhile the energy of the secularized West “has been sapped by the decay of the very things religion once energized: marriage, families, communities, a shared moral code, the ability to defer the gratification of instinct, the covenant that linked rich and poor in a bond of mutual responsibility, and a vision of the universe that gave rise to the social virtue of hope.” The so-called American Dream once tapped into this notion of hope, but it does so by exalting personal sacrifice in the quest for success – of the individual or of the small company.

“At the heart of the three faiths is the idea that within humanity there is one privileged position – favored son, chosen people, guardian of the truth, gatekeeper of salvation – for which more that one candidate competes. The result is conflict of the most existential kind, for what is at stake is the most precious gift of all: God’s paternal love. One group’s victory means another’s defeat, and since this is a humiliation, a dethronement, it leads to revenge. So the strife is perpetuated . . . Each defines and defends itself by negating the others.”

A radical thinker looks at the three religions today and “decides that the religious establishment is corrupt. In his eyes it has made its peace with the world, compromised its ideals and failed to live up to the pristine demands of the faith . . . [With an Internet age], suddenly the radicals command the heights and address the masses, while the religious establishment is left flat-footed and outpaced and looking old.”

“Living traditions constantly reinterpret their canonical texts. That is what makes fundamentalism – text without interpretation – an act of violence against tradition. In fact, fundamentalists and today’s atheists share the same approach to texts. They read them directly and literally, ignoring the single most important fact about a sacred text, namely that its meaning is not self-evident. It has a history and an authority of its own. Every religion must guard against a literal reading of its hard texts if it is not to show that it has learned nothing from history.” Note that the sacred literatures of Judaism, Christianity and Islam all contain passages that, read literally, are capable of leading to violence and hate.

“If two professing Christians, one Protestant, the other Catholic, could not resolve their disagreements without anathemas, excommunications and violence, then religion could not become the basis of a sustainable social order.” President Abraham Lincoln noted such religious infighting as he thought about the American experience and his country’s separation of Church and State. Eventually, Western Christianity would learn what the Jews had been forced to discover in antiquity: how to survive without power.

History shows us that “it took the spectacle of Jew against Jew, Christian against Christian, to bring about the change . . . That is what is happening within Islam today. The primary victims of Islamist violence are Muslims themselves, across the dividing lines of Sunni and Shia, modernist and neo-traditionalist, moderate against radical, and sometimes simply sect against sect . . . Violence is what happens when you try to resolve a religious dispute by means of power. It cannot be done. You cannot impose truth by force. That is why religion and power are two separate enterprises that must never be confused.”

Can the world be changed? Yes! “And the proof is one of the most uplifting stories in the religious history of humankind: the changed relationship between Jews and Christians after the Holocaust.”

Find out how radical Islam can be stopped in its tracks.

[Grant Lewandowski · Rating 5 out of 5]

Powerful and deeply thoughtful exploration of religious violence and the human tendency to divide the world into “us” vs. “them.” Sacks delves into the dangers of dualism and otherizing, making me reflect on the subtle ways this mindset might show up in my own life.

What really surprised me—in the best way—was his analysis of sibling rivalry in Genesis, showing how ancient stories still speak to our modern struggles. The book offers not only a critique of extremist interpretations but also a compassionate, hopeful vision for how people of faith can love and live alongside those who are different. Highly recommend for anyone looking to understand the roots of religious violence and how we might move beyond it.

[Janelle Hooper · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the most insightful books I have ever read. For me it was a page turner on how to move away from violence. Feels like a must read for our times.

[Anne Hamilton · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book wound up with a forest of sticky notes marking the pages and thoughts that struck me as profound and significant. Some of these are recorded below:

It was Machiavelli, not Moses or Mohammed, who said: it is better to be feared than to be loved—the creed of the terrorist and suicide bomber.

Computers analysed moral principles for their survival value and recognised the gold in the golden rule. In a world where people will probably do to you what you did to them, it pays to act towards others as you would have them act towards you. This has been variously called ‘reciprocal altruism’, ‘self-interest rightly understood’ or ‘cool self-love’. This is the simplest basis of the moral life because it creates the trust on which groups can form. (p 34)

Altruism leads us to make sacrifices for the sake of the group while at the same time leading us to commit acts of violence towards perceived threats to the group. Michael Ignatieff wrote: ‘Political terror is tenacious because it is an ethical practice. It is a cult of the dead, a dire and absolute expression of respect.’ (p41)

In Orphic dualism, the division is not between good and evil but between the soul and the body, physical and spiritual. Orphic myth tells of the clash of the Titans with Dionysius, whom the murder and eat. Zeus burns them in his anger and from the ash, humans are born, containing elements of both. Dionysius, the soul; Titans, the body. The soul is imprisoned in the body but lives on and is reincarnated. (p47)

Dualism ‘denied the unity and omnipotence of God in order to preserve His perfect goodness’ – Jeffrey Russell (p48)

First century rabbis, like the early Christians, believed in the goodness of ordinary people. They subscribed to a morality like the Sermon on the Mount. They called it lifnim mi-shurat ha-din, going beyond the letter of the law. (p 49)

They discovered a powerful way of excluding heretical beliefs. Unlike the Christians, who codified in creeds, they used the prayer book. They called dualism ‘two domains’, shtei reshuyot, and chose to reject it through Isaiah’s statement: ‘I form the light and create darkness: I make peace and create evil.’ (Isaiah 45:7) Out of delicacy, they substituted ‘all things’ for ‘evil’. This is the opening line of the communal Morning Prayer. (p50)
When someone contrasts the Old Testament God of revenge with the New Testament God of forgiveness, they are practising dualism. (p50)

Hitler’s Nazism was a perfect pathological dualism, contrasting the children of light with those of darkness. (p 55) It had to maintain in its propaganda two contradictory ideas: the master race and world domination vs. the self-pitying paranoia of the innocent, beleaguered victim. (p 59)

There is a unique mixture of light and shade in the characters of the Hebrew Bible. It teaches us that even the best are not perfect and even the worst not devoid of merit. (p64)

If you seek to understand what a group truly intends, look at the accusations it makes against its enemies. (p 83)

Identity, splitting, projection, pathological dualism, the scapegoat are general concepts. Not religious. As Freud and Girard said – it is not religion that leads to violence, it is violence that leads to religion. Mimetic desire is wanting what someone else has because they have it. (p87)
Many Muslims saved Jews during the Holocaust. (p91)

The first religious act leads directly to the first murder. Is sibling rivalry the primal form of violence? (p103)

Abraham does not bless Isaac. God does, but Abraham does not. One Jewish tradition states that this was so to ensure Ishmael did not feel resentment. (p123)

Three times Isaac expresses doubt about Jacob (masquerading as Esau), giving Jacob three opportunities to admit the truth. (p128)

The face of God at Peniel, the face of Esau, all connected to Isaac not being able to see Jacob’s face during the blessing. (p133ff)

Mimetic desire: Jacob longs to be Esau. (p136f)

The elder shall serve the younger is, in the original Hebrew, able to be read in the opposite sense.
An ambiguous supernatural message is not a prophecy but an oracle… Oracles and prophecies belong to two different types of civilisation. Oracles belong to the cluster of ideas – fate, hubris, nemesis – that yield tragedy in the classic, Greek sense. In tragedy the outcome is signaled in advance, and the more characters fight against their fate, the more enmeshed in it they become. Prophecy, by contrast, belongs to open, non-predetermined, historical times, the time that makes its first appearance in the Hebrew Bible and constitutes one of its most original contributions to human thought. The prophet WARNS, he does not PREDICT. Tomorrow is made by our choices today. Time, for the prophets, is not the inexorable unfolding of destiny but the arena of human freedom in response to the call of God. (p140f)

Sibling rivalry is defeated the moment we discover we are loved by God for who we are, not for who someone else is. We each have our own blessing. (p141)

The message of Genesis is that love is necessary but not sufficient. You also need sensitivity to those who feel unloved. (p 145)

The way we learn not to commit evil is to experience an event from the perspective of the victim. Judah’s repentance – showing that he is his brother Benjamin’s keeper – redeems not only his earlier sin, but also Cain’s. (p158)

In the story of Joseph there is a contronym, one word with two contradictory meanings (eg cleave – cut in two or join together; sanction – permission and prohibition). The word is n-k-r, recognise and be a stranger. (p 159)

A chosen people is the opposite of a master race, first, because it is not a race but a covenant; second, because it exists to serve God not to master others. A master race worships itself, a chosen people worships something beyond itself. A master race values power, a chosen people cares for the powerless. A master race knows it has rights, a chosen people knows only it has responsibilities. The key virtues of a master race are pride, honour and fame. The key virtue of a chosen people is humility. A master race produces monumental buildings, triumphal inscriptions and a literature of self-congratulation. Israel, to a degree unique in history, produced a literature of almost uninterrupted self-criticism. (p198f)

Israel was to be the people whose strength is not its own… its existence is an affront to those who see themselves as a master race, an imperial power or sole guardians of God’s truth. (p199)
Fundamentalism is dangerous because it goes straight from revelation to application without interpretation. In many religions, including Judaism, this leads to heresy and schism. God has given us both the mandate and the responsibility to interpret, lest the text lead to violence. We are guardians of His word for the sake of the world. (p208)

A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning. (Discussion on p 216)

The point made at the end of the book of Jonah is that even Israel’s enemies are God’s creatures. (p217)

The rabbis said there are seventy faces of Scripture. R. Samuel Edels said that the revelation at Sinai took place in the presence of 600,000 Israelites because the Torah can be interpreted 600,000 different ways. (p218)

Fundamentalism – text without interpretation – is an act of violence against tradition. (p219)
The aim of the Sicarii, as with their successors today, was to inflame relations between the local population and the occupying power, to generate an atmosphere of fear and to incite reprisals on both sides. (p222)

Monotheism allied to power fails. The story of the Tower of Babel begins: ‘The whole world had one language and shared words.’ Rabbi Naftali Berlin sees this as descriptive of the world’s first totalitarian state, the ‘shared words’ as a denial of the diversity of human opinion; dissent was forbidden and punishable by death. Unity without diversity is a repression of freedom. (p227f)

The most important inter-human command is: ‘Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt.’ Deuteronomy 10:19

Do not hate an Egyptian for you were a stranger in his land. Deuteronomy 23:7

When bad things happen, one can ask: ‘Who did this to me?’ or ‘What should my response be?’ The first is a dualist question, the second that of a consistent monotheist. They generate two modes of being: a blame culture and a penitential culture; on external cause or internal reaction. (p248)

Anti-Semitism plays a role in the legitimisation of evil. (See discussion p 259)

A scapegoat must be someone you can kill without risk of reprisal. (p260)

[David Cook · Rating 5 out of 5]

Oh, this book is just all kinds of good. One of the best I have read and worth rereading. I became aware of the book while reading Barbara Brown's book, Holy Envy. I have been more and more concerned by some of the anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant commentary I see on social media, especially by people I know who I would consider religious. Rabbi Sacks, a British rabbi and member of the House of Lords gives a remarkable exploration of the reasons behind religious violence and more importantly solutions for change.

Sacks' reviews René Girard’s theories of sibling rivalry, concluding, “[the three religions’] relationship is sibling rivalry, fraught with mimetic desire: the desire for the same thing, Abraham’s promise.” I had been familiar with Girard's writing and Sacks application to be fascinating and enlightening. Sacks provides a fascinating and ingenious reinterpretation of the book of Genesis, with an emphasis on the many sibling relationships in the book. Sacks argues that, scripture sets up classic mythic scenarios only to foil each expected conclusion with an unexpected reconciliation. He concludes that the whole of Genesis points to a “rejection of rejection,” an affirmation that all people are recipients of God’s love and blessing. This leads to the last and most difficult part of the book, concerning the implementation of this knowledge in solving the problem of religious violence.

Sacks notes that seeing the world through the eyes of “the other” is the surest way of creating peace. He also points out the futility of continued hatred and urges others to trust in God’s ability to judge, not in our own. However, some readers may be left wondering how Sacks’ conclusions could ever be seriously heard by the world’s staunchest fundamentalists. Nonetheless, the author has contributed an artful and meaningful work on interfaith dialogue. His treatment of Scripture alone is worth a close read.

Favorite Quotes:

“Now is the time for Jews, Christians and Muslims to say what they failed to say in the past: We are all children of Abraham. And whether we are Isaac or Ishmael, Jacob or Esau, Leah or Rachel, Joseph or his brothers, we are precious in the sight of God. We are blessed. And to be blessed, no one has to be cursed. God’s love does not work that way. Today God is calling us, Jew, Christian and Muslim, to let go of hate and the preaching of hate, and live at last as brothers and sisters, true to our faith and a blessing to others regardless of their faith, honoring God’s name by honoring his image, humankind.”

“Broadcasting is being replaced by narrowcasting. The difference is that broadcasting speaks to a mixed public, exposing them to a range of views. Narrowcasting speaks to a targeted public and exposes them only to facts and opinions that support their prejudices. It fragments a public into a set of sects of the like-minded.”

“Until our global institutions take a stand against the teaching and preaching of hate, all their efforts of diplomacy and military intervention will fail. Ultimately the responsibility is ours. Tomorrow’s world is born in what we teach our children today.”

“Weapons win wars, but it takes ideas to win the peace.”

“Too often in the history of religion, people have killed in the name of the God of life, waged war in the name of the God of peace, hated in the name of the God of love and practised cruelty in the name of the God of compassion. When this happens, God speaks, sometimes in a still, small voice almost inaudible beneath the clamour of those claiming to speak on his behalf. What he says at such times is: Not in My Name.”

[Betty · Rating 5 out of 5]

Many thanks to Edelweiss, Net Galley and Schocken for providing me an advance copy of this book for an honest review. I have already placed a pre-order for it.

This book addresses the issue of those who perform violent acts in the name of God. Rabbi Sacks defines “altruistic evil” as those acts so heinous that they cannot be defended or justified as the means to a great, noble or holy end. Much of the book looks at the connection between religion and violence. The role social media plays in the perpetuation of violent ideology is discussed.

Rabbi Sacks explains the concept of dualism and how it establishes the feeling of Us versus Them. It is suggested that “dualism becomes lethal when a group of people, a nation or a faith, feel endangered by internal conflict”. This Us versus Them can easily lead to the dehumanization which destroys empathy and sympathy. He proposes that through role reversal – always placing ourselves in the shoes of Them – can help us prevent dehumanizing others. He makes a good argument, in my opinion, of how this led to the Crusades, the Holocaust, Kosovo, Hutus vs Tutsis, and now al-Qaeda and ISIS. Since he believes that the Holocaust illustrates the psychological and social dynamics of hatred, the Holocaust is addresses extensively.

Anyone familiar with the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) knows that much of the violence centered around sibling rivalry. Several chapters explore the stories of Isaac and Ishmael, Esau and Jacob, Rachel and Leah. I found this section especially enlightening as Rabbi Sacks digs deeper into the stories and presents a totally different reason for these stories than we have all been taught. I spent quite some time thinking about his interpretations. And I know I will continue to think about them.

Jews are continually reminded that we are to be kind to the stranger because we were once a stranger in another land. This teaching has a much more profound meaning than I thought before I read this book.

Anyone interested in exploring the role of religion in violence and who is willing to broaden their thinking on stories they have been taught their entire life should definitely read this book. I will be keeping it with me and re-reading portions frequently as I continue to mull over what is written.

[Carla H. · Rating 5 out of 5]

I may be the last of my friends to read this book, but if you haven't, I highly recommend it. From the first line, "When religion turns men into murderers, God weeps.', to the final mandate "Today God is calling us, Jew, Christian and Muslim, to let go of hate and the preaching of hate, and live at last as brothers and sisters, true to our faith and a blessing to others regardless of their faith, honoring God's name by honoring his image, humankind.", I found myself saying 'yes, yes, yes.' If I were still preaching, you can be sure you would hear these words from the text, "too often in the history of religion, people have killed in the name of the God of life, waged war in the name of the God of peace, hated in the name of the God of love and practiced cruelty in the name of the God of compassion." I have wept every time I've read these words. Again, I highly recommend this book.

[Jessica · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an incredibly insightful book by an amazingly well-read scholar. I thoroughly enjoyed learning about different ways to read and understand some of the most troubling stories from the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible. I also appreciated that someone, rather than insisting that religion causes violence, proposed an alternative that actually makes sense, while still addressing the fact that some people do feel justified in committing horrible crimes in the name of God. I came away feeling educated and maybe a little uplifted; certainly motivated to share what I've learned.

[Micah · Rating 3 out of 5]

Definitely worth a read. The book got somewhat frustrating at points due to the inadequacy of his philosophical reasoning, the occasional blindness with which a religion was criticized and another's flaws overlooked.

However I did appreciate the work that Sacks was trying to accomplish with this work and his fair treatment of the three Abrahamic faiths. I particularly enjoyed the first few sections where he provides an exegesis of much of the Genesis story from an inter-faith perspective. However, Sacks arguments seemed to weaken with proportion to their distance from scriptural analysis.

[Arleen Dale · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rabbi Sacks has written a cogent explanation for the source of the violence plaguing our world. In particular, his reading of the stories in Genesis turns our accepted interpretations upside down. I was told by the person who recommended this book, that the sections on Genesis alone would "knock my socks off" and she was correct! I find I can apply Rabbi Sacks' insights to personal as well as global situations and make sense of what seems so senseless. I highly recommend this book.

[Fatih · Rating 5 out of 5]

A wonderful response to the violence stemming from religions. Author, starting with the story of Cain and Abel, provides a context based on Jewish scriptures that sibling rivalry is not and should not be the destiny of the humanity. With fitting references to Christianity and Islam, author calls the children of Abraham to create a world, where we can live together with our differences. World definetely needs more of these voices.

[Chrisanne · Rating 5 out of 5]

A superb book, confronting justification of religious violence in all its forms. Being a Rabbi, he does focus on antisemitism as a larger example but is quick to point out other instances in other religions and world events. Thoughtful and probing in many, sometimes uncomfortable, ways.

2nd Read:
"God hears the cry of the unheard, and so, if we follow him, do we."

[Joyceling · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another fascinating book by Sacks that should be widely read. The only reason I don't give 5 stars is because it lacks an index. Almost all his books would benefit from a good index. Subject matter very pertinent to today's world problems. A valuable read!

[Mindy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Best sections were the analyses of Biblical texts in new and creative ways. Would be useful for an interfaith discussion group. But it's really for those who are already convinced that violence is not the answer.

[Maria Weaving-Gómez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant read! A much needed light shed upon terrorism; what sparks it and what keeps it going.

[The Inked Reader · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 stars